[QUOTE=What Exit? to brazil84]
Please note he works for an oil and gas exploration company.
[/quote]
Not relevant.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
So I ask you again you dishonest shill, who do you work for and can you think for yourself?
Jim
[/QUOTE]
Yawn. Your paranoia isn’t helping your credibility at all.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Not relevant.
[/QUOTE]
Why?
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Yawn. Your paranoia isn’t helping your credibility at all.
[/QUOTE]
So how do you really refute the 3 reports I linked to?
You changed the subject very quick to a professional shill when confronted with newer reports that supported my statements.
Jim
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
So how do you really refute the 3 reports I linked to?
[/quote]
Start a thread in GD and we’ll discuss it.
And are you accusing me of being a professional shill? Yes or no.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Start a thread in GD and we’ll discuss it.
And are you accusing me of being a professional shill? Yes or no.
[/QUOTE]
You jumped into this thread to make a random remark about the “Hockey Stick” graph. I refuted it and you challenged me. I quickly provided 3 separate more recent studies and you changed the subject to your favorite Oil Company employed blogger.
Now you are clearly trying to weasel out of being caught in another lie.
Jim
Which is to say, if you’re a professional shill, you’re wildly overpaid.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
You jumped into this thread to make a random remark about the “Hockey Stick” graph. I refuted it and you challenged me. I quickly provided 3 separate more recent studies and you changed the subject to your favorite Oil Company employed blogger.
Now you are clearly trying to weasel out of being caught in another lie.
Jim
[/QUOTE]
Not at all. I prefer to discuss the temperature record in a civil manner.
I started a thread.
Now, speaking of weaseling, please answer my question:
Are you or aren’t you accusing me of being a professional shill?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
In science – and in law, and in daily discourse – “proof” and “evidence” are synonymous terms and neither implies any greater level of certainty or confidence than the other. (In mathematics the term “proof” is used exclusively to show a logically certain conclusion and the term “evidence” is not used at all; that is what may have confused you.) But that’s been hashed over, too.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know that I’d use the word “proof” in connection with AGW, precisely because of this conclusion. But if you say something like, “We know with a certainty exceeding 90% that human activities are a major contributing factor to global warming,” it seems to me you are on indisputably safe ground.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Yer shittin’ me. A semi-lefty like myself and you agreeing on something? Is that a sign of the apocalypse or that we need to be on the Unity '08 ticket?
[/QUOTE]
Hey, when you’re right, you’re right. (Perhaps I ought to say “correct,” in view of the “right” having a political meaning, but you get the idea).
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Not at all. I prefer to discuss the temperature record in a civil manner.
I started a thread.
Now, speaking of weaseling, please answer my question:
Are you or aren’t you accusing me of being a professional shill?
[/QUOTE]
You act like a professional shill. But it was pointed out to me recently that you might be an unprofessional shill. I am still hoping you will let us in on the joke and tell us if you are or are not.
BTW: Fuck you and your GD thread. Keep it here where you started your current round of misinformation.
Jim
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I don’t know that I’d use the word “proof” in connection with AGW, precisely because of this conclusion. But if you say something like, “We know with a certainty exceeding 90% that human activities are a major contributing factor to global warming,” it seems to me you are on indisputably safe ground.
[/QUOTE]
This is exactly how it should always be put to not give certain people a chance to raise false debates and red herrings.
An excellent clarification.
Jim
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Please note he works for an oil and gas exploration company.
[/QUOTE]
Why don’t you try attacking his arguments instead of trying an ad hominem?
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Are you or aren’t you accusing me of being a professional shill?
[/QUOTE]
Absent proof of compensation, I would say “amateur.”
[QUOTE=Quartz]
Why don’t you try attacking his arguments instead of trying an ad hominem?
[/QUOTE]
Certainly attacking the substance of his arguments is the best way to go (if this were GD). OTOH, this is not the kind of circumstance or question where “ad hominem” is fallacious, or in any way inappropriate.
???
Then any Christian would do well to avoid anything uttered by St. Paul.
Mr Macintyre’s background is out there in the open. Tell me, of all the scientists who promote AGW, how many are significantly funded by AGW research? Don’t they have a vested interest in promoting AGW? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. But you read both sides with appropriate regard for the authors. And you follow the data.
Anyway, I find the whole business an utter mess. There is simply no evidence at all one way or the other. Neither side has me convinced. People have noted the increase in CO2 levels but correllation does not equate to causation. There is no evidence linking the two. None. So I’ll read ClimateAudit, and I’ll read RealClimate, and I’ll read more. And I’ll continue to question.
Have I missed something? I don’t see that Rush has actually acknowledged that this is a fraud and announed to his listeners/viewers that the study should be discounted. It would not surprise me at all if he never issues a correction or retraction.
I’m with Tuckerfan on this. This hoax will end up doing more harm than good.
Imagine if a story came out showing that American soldiers had committed some horrible atrocity in Iraq, and the left jumped on it to discredit the war, then they found out that the story was actually a fake planted by some right-wing nutballs who could then show that the left wanted to believe American soldiers were monsters and hated America.
How do you think that would go over on the left? Do you think it would help people on the right? Or would it just make them look like dishonest sleazeballs willing to propagate horrible lies for partisan purposes?
[QUOTE=Quartz]
Tell me, of all the scientists who promote AGW, how many are significantly funded by AGW research? Don’t they have a vested interest in promoting AGW?
[/QUOTE]
Tell me, where’s this big pot of money that funds pro-AGW research, provided by people with an economic interest in publishing pro-AGW results?
I guess the Big Windmill lobby is better-funded than I realized.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Why [is someone’s place of employment not relevant with respect to the substance of an argument]?
[/QUOTE]
Because an argument should live or die on its own merits.